Scaramucci is Out

Posted by Tina

The appointment of General Kelly is already having a positive affect on the discipline at the White House. Anthony Scaramucci has been removed as communications director. Kelly wants to bring his own team aboard.

Scaramucci will return to his old job.

Sanity restored.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Scaramucci is Out

  1. Chris says:

    Good, though it’s much too late, and makes it appear that Kelly had to convince Trump to fire the Mooch, when his firing shouldn’t have ever been in question. “Sanity” would have been firing Mooch immediately, not four days later, and after firing one of the targets of the Mooch’s rantings first.

    Sanity won’t be restored until Trump is out.

    • Tina says:

      Too late for what?

      • Libby says:

        Too late for sanity, Tina.

        “Don’t be fooled by the phony morality act…and don’t be fooled by the garbage reporting either.”

        That was you, pretending the hiring of The Mooch, and then of course, The Mooch himself, were nothing out of the ordinary. Insane.

        Well … there is no question that Gen. Kelly, Ret. likes a challenge. I’m with Pete, let’s see if Kelly can keep the patient on his hinges until the end of the week.

      • Chris says:

        Too late to give Trump any credit for doing the right thing.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Well Chris, I hope you are wrong because we need Trump to be a good leader. I want him to succeed for us. He has some good ideas and he represents the hopes and dreams of half of America.

      • Libby says:

        A third. The stupid third.

        And what we are going to do about that, I do not know.

        • Tina says:

          You represent the stupid third that put up criminal Hillary Clinton and lost…what’s with all the arrogance and bragging?

          Not only that you represent a third that will not learn from mistakes and have nothing to offer policy wise that hasn’t proved to be a failure over the past eight years!

    • Peggy says:

      Hummm Chris, I don’t remember you calling for Obama to be out to restore sanity when he hired Rahm Emanuel for his Chief of Staff. He and his mouth were as bad as Scaramucci, if not worse.

  2. Pete says:

    Prediction: Trump will go on a twitter rant that totally undercuts the professional atmosphere Gen. Kelly is working to implement.

    The problem with our executive branch is its leader.

    • Tina says:

      He’s also the asset of the executive branch as an outsider in a city that has deep widespread corruption. You might be more aware of it if not for the media frenzy to aid their partners, the Democrats.

      Trump exposes the duplicity and bias like no one else could and it’s about time.

  3. Post Scripts says:

    This is wonderful news. A tactful way of removing this guy. The next challenge…the General must get the Trump Administration through at least 7 days in a row without some big blowup in the news. That will be a new record I think?

    Tina, perhaps this was a bad example to cite, but my only reason for bringing it up was the guy with the hot mike was saying nasty sex stuff off record. Scaramucci and that Assemblymen thought they were speaking confidentially, but in fact neither were. When exposed it caused a minor scandal. Voters wanted them accountable. So, it’s a moot point now perhaps, because the Mooch has been removed…I’m good with that. Glad he’s gone. Hoping for better days for the Donald.

    • Tina says:

      Jack I agree and you shouldn’t regret bringing it up. It’s important to discuss these things. I just want them to be discussed in full context and I’m determined to point to the double standard and hypocrisy. We’ve lived with it long enough to know how destructive it is to the reliability of our governing bodies. I wonder if one day Brent Bozell, or some other media watcher, will write a book about the many illegal and corrupt things that have gone on simply because some people in Washington get a pass and are provided cover.

  4. Peggy says:

    Amazing how some people either have bad memories or selective ones. Good thing the GOP Elephant is known for having a good memory, while the Dems Donkey is just for its backside and loud mouth.

    Rahm Emanuel controversy: White House fights image of turmoil:

    “Is White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel a shrewd tactician or an official who should get the boot? The competing story lines have spun out in the press. Now, his name is also coming up in the mess involving just-resigned Rep. Eric Massa.

    The media have long been fascinated by Rahm Emanuel.

    Whether as a young but senior staffer in the Clinton White House, a member of the House leadership, and now chief of staff in the Obama White House, Mr. Emanuel has always been the take-no-prisoners politico about whom no story seems too far-fetched.

    Enter Eric Massa, the just-resigned Democratic member of Congress who claimed, on his way out the door, that Emanuel confronted him in the shower at the House gym for not supporting President Obama’s policies. Mr. Massa also claimed that Democratic leaders forced him out of Congress because he opposed healthcare reform. House majority leader Steny Hoyer called Massa’s accusation “absurd.”

    On Fox News’s “Glenn Beck” show late Tuesday afternoon, Massa said that, in fact, he was not “forced out.” He said he “forced himself out.” “I failed,” he said. “I didn’t live up to my own codes.”

    The White House broke its silence on the matter Tuesday morning, when spokesman Robert Gibbs declared on ABC that “the whole story is ridiculous.”

    According to The Washington Post, allegations against Massa that he sexually harassed a male staffer verbally now include alleged physical harassment of multiple male staffers. In his Fox appearance, Massa described tickle fights with staffers but said he “did nothing sexual.”

    As the scandal around Massa grows, the Emanuel angle may recede. But the larger – and ultimately much more consequential – narrative of the future of the Obama presidency, as the White House makes its final push to pass healthcare reform, features Emanuel as a central character.

    Two dominant, competing story lines have spun out in the press: In one, Emanuel is the shrewd tactician whom Mr. Obama should have heeded more closely in his first year, on issues such as healthcare reform (the bill should have been smaller) and on the pledge to close the Guantánamo Bay prison camp in one year (bad idea). In the other, it is Emanuel who has made a hash of Obama’s first year in office and should get the boot.

    Usually, when competing blind quotes start showing up all over Washington media, that’s a sign of a once-well-oiled White House machine in need of a tuneup. During the presidential campaign, Team Obama was indeed a well-oiled machine. Emanuel was not part of the campaign. But, analysts say, that does not necessarily mean Emanuel is the problem. It just proves, once again, that it’s harder to be president than run for president.

    How does “no-drama Obama” feel about all the turmoil? Mr. Gibbs says, “The president is not focused on palace intrigue.” But there have also been reports that Obama has asked his senior advisers to quit the “finger-pointing and intrigue.”

    The salacious details of the Massa mess have only served to further distract attention from Obama’s efforts to drive home health reform. He delivered a rousing campaign-style address in Philadelphia on Monday, and on Wednesday, he heads to St. Louis for another healthcare speech. But the cable chatter has been all about the retired Navy man with a penchant for admitted “salty language,” and perhaps more.

    If Obama succeeds in passing healthcare reform, the palace intrigue will die down. If not, let the media feeding frenzy begin.”
    https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0309/Rahm-Emanuel-controversy-White-House-fights-image-of-turmoil

    Another good article about the vulgar language, turmoil and staffing problems in the Obama WH. Didn’t copy any parts in, cuz the whole article is worth reading.

    David Axelrod Describes The No Good, Very Bad Minefield Of Obama’s Early Presidency:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/david-axelrod-obama_n_6649688.html

    I’m sure I could find lots more if I kept looking, but these two are good enough to show all new presidents have problems getting things up and running. Obama had them too. Major difference is the Obama Senate approved hundreds of more staff and advisor positions than Trump’s. Delay… delay… delay by Senate Dems filling over a thousand positions prevents Trump from moving forward with his agenda. And also stops him from draining the swamp of Obama loyalist working deep down the chain of command in civil positions.

    • Chris says:

      “Major difference is the Obama Senate approved hundreds of more staff and advisor positions than Trump’s.”

      Libby already corrected you on this…last week. Trump has nominated fewer staff and advisor positions at this point in his presidency than Obama did. How are Democrats stopping him from nominations?

      • Tina says:

        Old news.

        Daily Signal, “Trump Well Behind in Winning Senate Confirmation of Appointees”

        …The president so far has nominated 197 persons for administration posts, of which 48 have won Senate confirmation. … By July 11, 2009, in his first year in office, President Barack Obama—with a Senate controlled by his party—had made 356 nominations, 200 of which had been confirmed, according to the Center for Presidential Transition, a project of the Partnership for Public Service. …

        … By this point in 2001, his first term, President George W. Bush—with a Democrat-controlled Senate—had made 296 nominations, 149 of which were confirmed.

        President Bill Clinton—also with a Democrat-controlled Senate—had made 256 nominations by this point in 1993, and had 196 confirmations.

        His predecessor, George H.W. Bush, had made 243 nominations at this point in 1989, of which 144 had won Senate confirmation.

        Three decades later, Senate Democrats are gumming up the process by requiring cloture filings for most of Trump’s nominees. Cloture means that before taking a vote on a nominee, the Senate must have a two-day waiting period and 30 hours of debate. The rule allows the Senate minority, in this case the Democrats, to halt other business.

        Some of Trumps decision may have to do with decreasing the size of government but there’s no doubt whatsoever that democrats are playing political games.

  5. Libby says:

    I have committed to the ultimate. I have sent Slate money. For theirs is far and away the most exemplary prose of the Trump Era.

    ****

    “Scaramucci was supposed to rescue a foundering operation. Instead, he was the fireman who strode up to a five-alarm conflagration and unleashed a hose full of gasoline. Last week, after less than seven days on the job, Scaramucci called up the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza and disgorged a stream of on-the-record invective against his main rival, then–White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. Scaramucci told Lizza he believed Priebus had been leaking his financial documents and dinner plans to the press. “The swamp will not defeat him,” Scaramucci said, referring to himself in the third person, as men who thrill to the sound of their voices often do. He continued, “I’ve done nothing wrong on my financial disclosures, so they’re going to have to go fuck themselves.” And on the theme of loving oneself, he tossed in this throwaway line about another senior adviser: “I’m not Steve Bannon. I’m not trying to suck my own cock.”

    “For the last six months, a small army of anonymous sources have fed us tales of rivalries and intrigues and power struggles. And then, 10 days ago, Anthony Scaramucci showed up on the front porch of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., turned on a megaphone, and started shouting about leaks and cocks. Before the Scaramucci era, we knew the White House was a grimy, savage den of distemper backbiting. During the Scaramucci epoch—nasty, brutish, and short—we got to see the shape of those bite marks and whose teeth had clamped down where. And now that the Days of Scaramucci have expired, we’ll long for those almost two weeks when this perfect symbol of self-obsession and self-defeat briefly yanked the Oval Office’s golden curtains open.”

    Can Kelly do it? Can he keep The Trump on message for a week?

    Nobody, absolutely nobody, will give you odds.

    • Tina says:

      I told you that you’d soon have a high old time on offense.

      While you and the left media diddle over incidentals and feign phony outrage Trump continues to get things done. It’s a fair enough trade.

      • Libby says:

        Uh-huh. Did the Repugs get the ACA repealed? Nope.

        There were many reasons for this, but those nasty journalists … they have pointed out that … during important House and Senate votes on the matter … The Trump was not busy on the phone cajoling votes … he was out on the White House lawn playing “vrooom, vroooom,” goes the semi, and the fire truck, respectively.

        If you think our military-industrial cabal failed to take note of this, you is nuts.

  6. Peggy says:

    Look, this was a turning point for Trump. By my count he now has all of the RNC/GOP establishment out and replaced with outsiders he wanted and will need to fulfil his campaign promises and agenda to MAGA.

    Trump attended a military academy from the age of 13, for five years. So, surrounding himself with generals would create an environment he’s comfortable with. It’s the life he grew up and thrived in. It’s the environment of structure and discipline that turned a boy in to a captain of his sports teams, a successful business man and president of America.

    He believes in strong leaders and delegating, because that’s what military life is like. You don’t show weakness and you do depend on the commanders under you to do their jobs for God and country.

    If Trump and his advisors can fight off the attacks from the left, the media and the RINO establishment he will be known as one of our best presidents ever. He said he’d get us to a 3.0 GDP growth rate and today, after only six months, a 2.6 GDP was announced.

    I didn’t vote for him, but I sure as he77 am hoping he succeeds. It would be nice to have people employed again and not living on the streets. It would be fantastic to have wages go up because there’s a demand for jobs instead of businesses closing down forcing people on welfare and food stamps to care for their families.

    • Tina says:

      “… and today, after only six months, a 2.6 GDP was announced.”

      Compared to 1.6%. A good start. Trump and co have eliminated $8.6 billion in regulations. That’s money companies can use to grow their businesses and hire people! it’s money taxpayers can use to buy things their families need.

    • Libby says:

      But what if … what if … Kelly is the point man for a military-industrial cabal that has decided enough is enough? … and that an Article 25 departure for our Dear Leader is in the works. It shouldn’t be too difficult to engineer. Our Commander in Chief (Lord Help Us All) seems to be losing marbles on a daily basis.

  7. Libby says:

    “… and today, after only six months, a 2.6 GDP was announced.”

    … and anyone willing to give The Trump credit for this is obscenely prejudiced and appallingly ignorant. For whatever might be doing, economically, in October 2018 … for this, The Trump will get credit.

    • Tina says:

      He gets some credit, not all, because of his agenda for growth: the elimination of onerous regulations, the prospect of tax cuts, renegotiation of trade agreements, getting us out of the TPP and Climate Accord, all of which inspire confidence.

      I’m the one that informed you that Obama could not be blamed for his first year because he inherited the budget of 09, so you can drop the demeaning language and take this opportunity to expand your own knowledge.

      Trickle down economics…lowering tax rates across the board…has worked under presidents of both parties. JFK before Ronald Reagan cut taxes to inspire growth. Bill Clinton was smart enough to go along with the Newt Gingrich tax cuts and inspired the boom of the nineties. Bush’s tax cuts were working after 911 and Katrina, our debt was even coming down. Pelosi took the House in 06 and started spending like a drunken sailor and then of course Obama took over. The rich have gotten richer while the rest of us have suffered stagnation and loss. The legacy of Democrat EU socialism is clear. Socialist policies do nothing for the common person and everything for the elite rich!

    • Peggy says:

      LOL Oh Libs your ignorance and prejudice is screaming with every word you write.

      How could you forget The Great Recession was declared over just six months after Obama took office…. So, based on your own remarks Bush gets ALL of the credit for the ending of the recession and Obama gets none.

      What Obama does get credit for is the horrible economy he cursed this country with for the next 7.5 years. No GDP of over 2%, while Trump is ticks away from breaking his record in just months.

      September 20, 2010, 10:57 AM
      Great Recession Ended in June 2009, Panel Says:

      “The longest recession the country has endured since World War II ended in June 2009, a group that dates the beginning and end of recessions declared Monday.

      The National Bureau of Economic Research, a panel of academic economists based in Cambridge, Mass., said the recession lasted 18 months. It started in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. Previously the longest postwar downturns were those in 1973-1975 and in 1981-1982. Both of those lasted 16 months.”
      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/great-recession-ended-in-june-2009-panel-says/

  8. Tina says:

    “But the O-man did not end the Recession in six months. Six years was more like it. ”

    The recession ended in 2009 by definition. The misery of the O-man’s socialist policies lasted throughout his entire two terms and some of the “malaise” will continue until we get relief from Obamacare, rid ourselves of onerous regulations, and enact pri-growth tax policy.

  9. Tina says:

    “Get this”

    Imagine! The world’s haters love to hate. The current hatred of Trump is a fine example.

    The thing is, Libby, your party plays games about “haters.” Your party insinuates hatred and racism where none exists. In other words, you lie and smear the opposition through a false narrative of racism for political gain. The deceit has shut down honest communication and debate. How very totalitarian of you.

    • Libby says:

      You always resort to hyperbole, very Alinsky-like, I have to say. Nobody hates anybody. But Tina … how can we ignore this?

      http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/trump-phone-calls/index.html

      It’s getting to be a dangerously frequent occurrence.

      • Tina says:

        And you run like he77 from the truth, pivot to another topic. How very left of you.

        CNN? You’re kidding right? The network that faced a big lawsuit for a false “Russia connections” story that had to be retracted and forced three journalists to resign? The network that spends two seconds a day on real news and the rest hawking that Russia story that in all of these months entails zero evidence?

        Make whatever you will of it. It will be pure fantasy anyway.

        Just in case you’re interested in a case with actual evidence, a story CNN should be investigating and reporting, try National Review, “How the Clintons Sold Out U.S. National Interests to the Putin Regime”

        • Chris says:

          Tina, it is not just CNN. It is Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who says the calls Trump claims he got from the Boy Scouts and Mexico never took place. (Of course, she says Trump was just confused, and the conversations happened in person…sure.)

          • Tina says:

            Confused?

            Can’t blame you.

            Trump talks to a lot of people. Some by phone, some in person, some in meetings with a lot of people. I can see how the President could mistakenly refer to phone conversations that happened in person. His stamina and energy amaze me!

            But maybe he was just trying to say the constant criticism is not painting an accurate picture about his relationships. He did receive praise from the boy scouts…people enjoyed his speech at the event. There are fewer people coming across Mexico’s southern border. Trumps policies are responsible for that.

            Also, I can’t be alarmed over trivial, by comparison, matters. Considering the actual crimes that the media is purposely ignoring and the people they shield from facing justice as a result do these misstatements mean that much?

            I think we as a nation had better begin to look at our priorities. We have more important things to work on and discuss.

          • Chris says:

            Tina, are you not aware that Trump has a history of describing phone calls that never happened, and making fake calls impersonating other people himself, long before he became president? “John Barron” ring any bells?

            How much longer are you willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a man who does this?

          • Chris says:

            I’ve no doubt some Boy Scouts loved Trump’s gross and politicized speech. But the organization as a whole has had to apologize for it. That’s what Trump was asked about when he falsely claimed the head had called him and said it was the best speech ever.

            Do you not see how…pathetic that behavior is? Where is Trump’s apology for putting the Scouts in this position? There won’t be one, because in Trump’s mind, he can do no wrong. He must be praised wherever he goes.

  10. Libby says:

    I ask, and the Google-God answers. From Danny Vinik @ Politico:

    “In the case of the Dow, this is pretty easy to understand. The 30 companies in the Dow employ more than 6 million workers, a small percentage of the 153 million people working in the United States. And since about 80 percent of the value of the stock market is held by the richest 10 percent of the nation, the vast majority of gains in share value accrue to the rich, not to most Americans.

    “Financial experts and most policymakers are normally hesitant to celebrate a rising stock market. During Barack Obama’s eight years in office, the Dow rose 140 percent, a result of him taking over during the depths of the Great Recession. But despite the huge growth in the Dow and the recovery from the recession, few, if any, economists would say the economy was strong under Obama. Economic growth fluctuated around 2 percent, and wages only inched forward. Voters’ anger over the economy was clear with the election of Trump.

    “Trump would have trouble replicating Obama’s stock market record if he tried: That would require the Dow to hit nearly 50,000 by 2025. His voters would be better served if he tried to build on the economic gains to spur stronger wage growth and full employment, while addressing structural challenges like weak productivity growth and declining labor force participation. These are hard issues, and they won’t be solved overnight—or in six months. They might not even show up in the Dow: stronger wage growth, for instance, hurts companies’ bottom lines.

    “How’s Trump doing on those more important measures so far? Nothing much has really changed. The president has been touting second-quarter GDP growth, which came in at 2.6 percent. “We have a growth rate which has been much higher than, as you know, anybody anticipated, except maybe us,” he said Wednesday. The last time quarterly economic growth reached that level? The third quarter of 2016.”

    ***

    I will say that, perhaps, we enjoy airing The Trump’s ignorance just a tad too much. If only he weren’t such a braggart. It’s very provoking.

    • Tina says:

      He wouldn’t have to toot his own horn so much if the Trump hating media wasn’t so hell bent on making sure the public doesn’t see what is being accomplished. (None of us are holding our breaths.)

      This lovely introduction to the Pelosi/Schummer Better Deal campaign leaves out a lot and blows a lot of smoke. Take this piece of happy talk for instance:

      During Barack Obama’s eight years in office, the Dow rose 140 percent, a result of him taking over during the depths of the Great Recession.

      Oh yes, the savior story. The trouble is policy under Barack Obama’s leadership artificially stimulated the stock market, gains were made by pumping money into it more than because of production. His policies did nothing for main street and are the only reason we’ve suffered, just as we did during the Great Depression.

      Had a conservative steered us through the “depths,” the recession that ended in 2009 would have been followed with strong growth on both main street and Wall Street. There was no real recovery under Obama for the middle and lower classes. The gap between rich and poor grew ever wider. So please, stop with the happy talk.

      Next the author attempts to build a floor, giving Obama credit he doesn’t deserve:

      His voters would be better served if he tried to build on the economic gains….

      Build…build with what? Noncompetitive corporate taxes? Too many regulations? Another entitlement program that is falling apart? Wage stagnation? Job stagnation? Artificially controlled low interest rates? Government spending? Uncontrolled borders? Chaos in the world? What the heck is there to build on except a giant mess?!!!

      Next he makes a subtle but obvious case that companies are greedy and screw their employees:

      “These are hard issues, and they won’t be solved overnight—or in six months. They might not even show up in the Dow: stronger wage growth, for instance, hurts companies’ bottom lines.

      Oh brother. Lower their taxes. Get rid of onerous regulations. Business people LOVE making things and they are more than willing to hire and pay employees IF government gets the heck out of the way so they can produce. The reward at the end of the day is profit…but it is profit shared with others in the form of good jobs and good wages.

      Congress must work with Trump and lower tax rates. It works to let the people produce. (It even brings more revenue to the various governments.)

      ” It’s very provoking.”

      Yes it is and I’m not sure that isn’t as intended…we’ll see.

      • Chris says:

        “He wouldn’t have to toot his own horn so much if the Trump hating media wasn’t so hell bent on making sure the public doesn’t see what is being accomplished.”

        Tina, “the media made me do it” is no better than “the devil made me do it,” and is certainly not leadership. If Trump did not act the buffoon on a daily basis, the media would have to focus on policy, and then we could get a fair read on what is and is not being accomplished. But “President caught lying about his role in crafting son’s statement on secret Russian meeting” is a sexier headline, and you can’t blame the media for that.

        I notice you and Peggy have still not corrected your mistake about no quarters with higher than 2.6 percent growth under Obama. Ready to do that yet? You don’t have to give Obama the same credit you just gave Trump for having one quarter of 2.6 percent growth; I’m just looking for a correction on the factual matter here.

        • Tina says:

          Trump was elected by the people. We get him for at least four years, warts and all…just as we got Obama with all of his warts for eight.

          “If Trump did not act the buffoon on a daily basis, the media would have to focus on policy,…”

          The “president made me do it” is a superior (or different) argument?

          There’s no excuse for professional journalists to make his social media tweets the 24/7 story when other serious policies and issues are in the works! It’s irresponsible to spend so much time covering a non-story (Russia) and ignore all other issues. The main stream media is engaging in irresponsible journalism…and blatantly partisan activism. If they want to be activists they should resign and seek employment in a different profession.

          Western Journalism, “Study Shows Networks Cover Trump’s Tweets But Not Kate’s Law”

          …Thursday evening’s network news coverage gave 28 times more space to the tweets than the House action.

          Collectively, the networks spent more than 12 minutes of coverage on Trump’s tweets.

          The House action received only 26 seconds of coverage…and that was on one network: NBC. The legislation received no mention whatsoever on CBS and ABC.

          <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/06/27/study-tv-news-obsessed-trump-russia-probe, “Study: TV News Is Obsessed With Trump-Russia Probe”

          How much has the media’s obsession with the ongoing Russia investigation smothered the rest of the Trump policy agenda? A Media Research Center study of every broadcast network evening newscast in the five weeks since the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller on May 17 found a whopping 353 minutes of airtime devoted to the Russia probe, or 55 percent of all coverage of the Trump presidency during those weeks.

          The networks’ relentless coverage of Russia meant little airtime was spent on important policy topics, as the investigation garnered 20 times more attention than the new health care bill, 100 times more attention than the administration’s push to improve the nation’s infrastructure, and a stunning 450 times more coverage than the push for comprehensive tax reform.

          The study also found one-third (34%) of the networks’ Russia coverage was based on anonymous sources, some of which later proved erroneous.

          You made a snotty accusation on another thread about growth rates. I agree it’s important to compare apples to apples but your snarky attitude does not change the statistics we posted. Do you need more?

          February 1, 2016, Real Clear Markets, “Barack Obama’s Sad Record on Economic Growth”

          On Friday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported that 2015 U.S. real GDP (RGDP) growth was 2.38%. No matter what revisions are subsequently made, 2015 will have been the tenth year in a row that RGDP growth came in at under 3.0%. The longest previous such run in U.S. economic history was only four years, and the last time that this happened was during the Great Depression (1930 – 1933).

          Even worse, and this should be the defining issue of the 2016 elections, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is now forecasting that America will never see 3.0% economic growth again. (CBO does static scoring assuming that the variables will remain the same)

          Mother Jones, “Chart of the Day: The Economy Grew 1.9% in Obama’s Final Quarter”

          For the record, GDP grew from $14.4 trillion to $18.9 trillion under President Obama’s watch. Adjusted for inflation and population growth, that’s an increase in real per-capita GDP of 10 percent, or 1.25 percent per year.

          against crony capitalism, “Barack Obama Will Be The Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth”

          We just got another extremely disappointing GDP number. It was being projected that U.S. GDP would grow by 2.5 percentduring the second quarter of 2016, but instead it only grew by just 1.2 percent. In addition, the Census Bureau announced that GDP growth for the first quarter of 2016 had been revised down from 1.1 percent to 0.8 percent. What this means is that the U.S. economy is just barely hanging on by its fingernails from falling into a recession. As Zero Hedge has pointed out, the “average annual growth rate during the current business cycle remains the weakest of any expansion since at least 1949″. This is not what a recovery looks like.

          August 2016, The weekly Standard, “Obama’s Historically Bad Economy”

          Adjusted for inflation, average yearly GDP growth under President Obama has been less than half of what it was under President Jimmy Carter, 1.5 percent to 3.3 percent.

          You and I both know statistics can be used or manipulated to fit a narrative. One thing that can;t be faked is the state of the economy in the lives of citizens. The rich, as reflected by the stock market, always do well. But the middle class and poor have not done well under Obama. You seem unable or unwilling to just admit that.

          I don’t think I wrote that GDP never got over 2.6%. I do recall saying it remained under 3%, which is true and which is growth too low to support our middle class and lower class citizens and that’s the point.

          Are YOU ready to acknowledge your error yet? Or the reason you cling so tightly to the myth?

          • Chris says:

            There’s no excuse for professional journalists to make his social media tweets the 24/7 story when other serious policies and issues are in the works!

            But the president using Twitter to side with Russia over Congress *is* a serious issue, Tina.

            https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/893083735633129472

            It’s irresponsible to spend so much time covering a non-story (Russia)

            The fact that a grand jury was just called should be enough to prove that it is not a “non-story.” And this came after a day where Trump’s inexplicable love for Russia had already been demonstrated twice:

            –He condemned Congress for passing sanctions on Russia, and refused to condemn Russia for its sanctions on us
            –Leaked transcripts revealed that he praised Putin in a call to the Australian prime minister, saying his call with Putin was his most enjoyable one of the day. He also insulted the Australian prime minister and said this was his worst call of the day. (This proved that he lied about the call on Twitter that same day.)

            This fits a pattern of Trump sucking up to Putin and taking his side over our own government. He has cast doubt on the intelligence community’s assessment of their hacking attacks on our country multiple times. Why would he do this, unless he is beholden to Russia in some way?

            You made a snotty accusation on another thread about growth rates. I agree it’s important to compare apples to apples but your snarky attitude does not change the statistics we posted. Do you need more?

            All of this is wrong.

            Peggy brought up Trump’s 2.6 GDP growth in *this* thread. You responded, “Compared to 1.6%.” But that is NOT an “apples-to-apples” comparison; the 2.6 refers to a single quarter under Trump, while your 1.6 number refers to an entire year under Obama. As I pointed out, there were many quarters of 2.6 growth and higher under Obama. Despite this, you credited Trump’s policies for getting us to 2.6 in one quarter while refusing to give credit to Obama’s policies for getting us there in multiple quarters.

            Do you understand now why your comparison was dishonest and your crediting of Trump but not Obama hypocritical?

            Do you need me to explain it again?

  11. Libby says:

    “He wouldn’t have to toot his own horn ….”

    You go tooting your horn with a pack of lies, you’re gonna get called on it … ‘specially if you are the Prezzy. It should not be this way? Explain it to us.

  12. Tina says:

    It shouldn’t be this way but Trump certainly didn’t create the situation driving it.

    It’s pretty simple really. Trump gave the left media an opportunity to cover his presidency honestly. Instead they focused on the Russia nonsense, about which there is more evidence available that points to the DNC, HBC/BC, and the Hillary campaign than to Trump. They also chose to attack and demean his family rather than cover the things that are important to the American people. Both are dear to Trump whether you think so or not.

    Nothing the President has tweeted is earth shatteringly important and yet the media obsesses. There are important issues that deserve and should get more air time in organizations that claim to be disseminating “news.” For some reason this doesn’t bother you at all.

    You preaching to me about a “pack of lies” after the last eight years is oustandingly hilarious.

    • Libby says:

      “It shouldn’t be this way but Trump certainly didn’t create the situation driving it.”

      He tells the lies, doesn’t he?

      And as to the “Russia nonsense” … it’s Grand Jury time, already. Tina, you need to brace yourself.

  13. Tina says:

    “He tells the lies, doesn’t he?”

    He makes misstatements; he pulls chains, he defends his family and supporters.

    Neither you or I can know for sure what the truth is about a lot of this stuff there’s so much lying going on.

    I think maybe you better brace yourself. There’s a lot of unresolved stuff left over from the O’bummer years.

  14. Tina says:

    “He tells the lies, doesn’t he?”

    He makes misstatements; he pulls chains, he defends his family and supporters.

    Neither you or I can know for sure what the truth is about a lot of this stuff there’s so much lying going on.

    I think maybe you better brace yourself. There’s a lot of unresolved stuff left over from the O’bummer years, the Hillary campaign, the Hillary state dept, the Hillary and Bill foundation, lil’ Debbie and her IT gang…where are the special council investigations for all of that?

    I don’t care what your politics are if you can’t see something stinks to high heaven in DC you is blind, deaf, and dumb!

    • Libby says:

      “He makes misstatements; …”

      This is not lying? There are two options here:

      1. Somebody is a hypocrite … and will not admit that they have no objections to immoralities perpetrated by their team.

      2. Somebody’s moral compass is broke.

      No … I take it back … only the one option. If your moral compass was not broke, you could not be such a hypocrite.

      And speaking of stink, there seems to be a sulphurous miasma clouding around Manafort, wherever he goes. His cellmates will be bummed.

      • Tina says:

        “There are two options here”

        Actually three… a person who speaks with hundreds of people a day, some several times, through various means (phone, face to face, dispatch, email…) might not recall when information was relayed and how. Thus a misstatement.

        You lefty A$$holes sent Scooter Lobby to jail for that but can’t find a reason to prosecute someone who illegally does government business on an unsecured private server, destroys (government property) emails, smashes and BleachBits her hard drive, and lies through her teeth on a regular basis. Instead your operatives within the government hold sham hearings in which you don’t bother to put witnesses under oath and then announce findings that should result in a trial and magically didn’t. Worst of all, Democrat voters see nothing wrong and continue, gleefully at times, to buy into and actively participate in the corrupt game.

        Don’t talk to me about lying until you get your own house in order. Your party is filled with criminals and corruption and remain smug and sanctimonious …and you? You still identify with and defend them.

        You should be worried about those in the deep state that unlawfully used NSA procedures to spy on the Trump campaign and then criminally unmasked people unrelated to the supposed NSA inquiry. Of course you don’t have to worry about that, or any of the other crimes committed by Democrats simply because of the deep widespread corruption in your party and embedded in our government.

        Much, if not all, of the information you read at Slate and other hard left sites is tainted, embellished, twisted, selective, or just flat out wrong. The “smoke” has been generated from the collection of names that should have been blacked out in NSA reports. That they weren’t constitutes a crime.

        National Review, “FISAgate: The Question Is Not Whether Trump Associates Were Monitored – It’s whether it was done abusively.”

        In light of how controversial the matter has become, it’s unfortunate to find so much uninformed commentary, especially in cable-TV land, about foreign intelligence collection and its so-called minimization protocols — particularly, the guidelines about revealing, or “unmasking,” the identities of Americans whose communications are “incidentally” intercepted.

        The question arises because of reporting — most recently, the coverage of disclosures last week by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes — that the communications of figures associated with the Trump campaign were intercepted “incidentally” by U.S. intelligence agencies because they had some interaction with people connected in some way to foreign powers, principally Russia. The Trump associates subjected to such intelligence-agency monitoring certainly include former national-security adviser Michael Flynn, who was intercepted when speaking with Russia’s ambassador to the United States. In addition, the intercepted individuals probably include at least three others: Paul Manafort, who ran the Trump campaign until being ousted in July (when reports surfaced of payments to him by the former government of Ukraine — a Putin puppet regime); and two others, Roger Stone and Carter Page, who had informal connections to the campaign (but longstanding ties of varying degree to Trump and Manafort).

        Nunes’s disclosures further suggest that the communications of others associated with Trump’s campaign (perhaps even Trump himself) were also intercepted. During the press conference, a reporter asked, Nunes, “Was the president [i.e., Trump] included in that incidental collection — his communication?” Nunes responded, “Yes.” Based on the little that has been reported, the interception and handling of these communications seems more disturbing because, according to Nunes, they have nothing to do with any known government intelligence investigations of Russia. Unless there is some legitimate connection to foreign activities, the specter of political spying hovers.

        A special council has been brought but without a crime to investigate!

        Powerline, “A witch hunt?”

        Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein fundamentally violates the applicable regulation. The regulation requires that the Attorney General or the Acting Attorney General determine “that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted…”

        Rosenstein’s order appointing Mueller is posted online here. In his announcement of Mueller’s appointment Rosenstein stated: “In my capacity as acting Attorney General, I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a Special Counsel to assume responsibility for this matter.”

        Nota bene (this is still Rosenstein speaking): “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”

        McCarthy explains: “The way this is supposed to work is: the Justice Department first identifies a likely crime, and then assigns a prosecutor to investigate it. Here, by contrast, there are no parameters imposed on the special counsel’s jurisdiction.”

        Therefore: “Mueller’s probe is the functional equivalent of a general warrant: a boundless writ to search for incriminating evidence. It is the very evil the Fourth Amendment was adopted to forbid: a scorch-the-earth investigation in the absence of probable cause that a crime has been committed.”

        At the time Andy wrote his column, Mueller’s team included 14 lawyers and counting. There were “several more in the pipeline.”

        A funny thing about these lawyers. They “overwhelmingly, are Democrats. Power Line’s Paul Mirengoff and the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross have been tracking it: Mueller’s staffers contribute to Trump’s political opponents, some heavily. The latest Democratic talking-point about this unseemly appearance is that hiring regulations forbid an inquiry into an applicant’s political affiliation. That’s laughable. These are lawyers Mueller has recruited. They are not ‘applicants.’ We’re talking about top-shelf legal talent, accomplished professionals who have jumped at the chance of a gig they do not need but, clearly, want.”

        Mueller is drawing on a limitless budget to conduct an investigation without boundaries by lawyers hostile to the president.

        McCarthy drew on his own experience prosecuting complex cases to ask two questions: “Why does special counsel Mueller need 14 lawyers (and more coming) [as of June 21] for a counterintelligence investigation, as to which the intelligence professionals—agents, not lawyers—have found no ‘collusion with Russia’ evidence after over a year of hard work? What will those lawyers be doing with no limits on their jurisdiction, with nothing but all the time and funding they need to examine one target, Donald Trump?”

        In typical progressive left (communist) style, those with power fill the heads of useful idiots (like you) through controlled (complicit) media.

        Some of the folks at NR are not friends of Trump You will find links withing the above stories that demonstrate the professionalism in journalism that is represented in public debate on the issue.

  15. Tina says:

    More for you progressives to ponder as your party hits the skids:

    By tomorrow, 164 million Americans will live in the 26 states that are wholly controlled by Republicans, 109 million will live in states where power is shared between the parties, and only 50 million will live in the six states controlled by the Democrats.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.